EMPIRICAL EVALUATION OF INERTIAL

SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION EFFECTS

by

Jonathan P. Stewart
Civil & Environmental Engineering Department, University of California, Los Angeles

Raymond B. Seed and Gregory L. Fenves

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley

Research supported by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),

Department of the Interior, under USGS award number 1434-
HQ-97-GR-02995. The views and conclusions contained in
this document are those of the authors and should not be
interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies,
either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Government.

Report No. PEER-98/07

Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center

University of California
Berkeley, California

November 1998
ii
 ABSTRACT

Award No. 1434-HQ-97-GR-02995

EMPIRICAL EVALUATION OF INERTIAL

SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION EFFECTS

PI: Raymond B. Seed Co - PI: Jonathan P. Stewart

Civil and Environmental Engineering Dept.
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720-1710
tel: 510-642-8438 fax: 510-642-7476
cegeot@ce.berkeley.edu
Civil and Environmental Engineering Dept.
University of California
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1593
tel: 310-206-2990 fax: 310-206-2222
jstewart@seas.ucla.edu

Strong motion data obtained over the last decade from sites with instrumented structures and
free-field accelerographs has provided an unprecedented opportunity to evaluate empirically the
effects of soil-structure interaction (SSI) on the seismic response of structures. Strong motion
data were gathered for 58 sites encompassing a wide range of structural systems, geotechnical
conditions, and ground shaking levels. System identification analyses were employed with these
records to quantify the effects of inertial interaction on modal parameters of structures. Simple
indices of free-field and foundation-level ground motions were also compared. From these
results, the conditions under which significant SSI effects occur were identified, and simplified
analytical techniques for predicting these effects were calibrated.
For each site, system identification analyses were used to evaluate first-mode periods and
damping ratios for a flexible-base case which incorporates SSI effects, and a fixed-base case in
which only the structural flexibility is represented. Inertial interaction effects were evaluated
from variations between fixed- and flexible-base parameters (i.e. the lengthening of first-mode
fixed-base period due to foundation translation and rocking, and the damping attributable to
foundation-soil interaction). These inertial interaction effects were found to be significant at
some sites (e.g. period lengthening ratios of 4, and 30% foundation damping), and negligible at
others (no period lengthening and zero foundation damping).
Analytical formulations similar to procedures in contemporary building codes were used to
predict inertial interaction effects at the sites for comparison with the “empirical” results. A
collective examination of the empirical and predicted results revealed a pronounced influence of
structure-to-soil stiffness ratio on inertial interaction, as well as secondary influences from
structure aspect ratio and foundation embedment ratio, type, shape, and non-rigidity. The
analytical predictions were generally found to be reasonably accurate, with some limitations for
deeply embedded and long-period structures.

iii
 NON-TECHNICAL PROJECT SUMMARY

Recent improvements in seismological source modeling and the analysis of travel path and site
response effects have led to significant advances in both code-based and more advanced
procedures for evaluating seismic demand for structural design. A missing link, however, has
been an improved and empirically verified treatment of soil-structure interaction (SSI) effects on
both strong motions transmitted to structures and structural response to these motions. This
research employed system identification analysis with earthquake strong motion recordings to
quantify the effects of soil-structure interaction on seismic structural response, and used these
observations to calibrate simplified analysis procedures for predicting these effects.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................iii

NON TECHNICAL PROJECT SUMMARY................................................................ iv

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xi

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................xvii

LIST OF SYMBOLS...................................................................................................... xix

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................... xxiv

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.................................................................................. 1

1.1 Introduction.................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Organization of the Report ............................................................................ 5

CHAPTER 2: SIMPLIFIED ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES FOR PREDICTING

SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION EFFECTS.............................. 9

2.1 Introduction and Problem Definition............................................................. 9

2.1.1 Components of the Soil-Structure Interaction Problem .................. 9

2.1.2 Methodologies for Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis................. 10

2.2 Inertial Interaction........................................................................................ 14

2.2.1 System Considered ........................................................................ 14

2.2.2 Impedance Function ...................................................................... 15

(a) Basic case.......................................................................... 15

(b) Nonuniform soil profiles ................................................... 20

(c) Foundation embedment ..................................................... 21

(d) Foundation shape.............................................................. 25

v
 (e) Foundation flexibility ........................................................ 27

(f) Piles or piers ..................................................................... 30

2.2.3 Results ........................................................................................... 30

2.2.4 Calibration of Analysis Results with Field Performance Data...... 36

2.3 Kinematic Interaction .................................................................................. 38

2.3.1 Base-Slab Averaging..................................................................... 39

2.3.2 Embedment.................................................................................... 45

(a) Analytical studies .............................................................. 45

(b) Empirical studies............................................................... 49

2.4 Summary...................................................................................................... 50

2.4.1 Inertial Interaction ......................................................................... 51

2.4.2 Kinematic Interaction .................................................................... 52

CHAPTER 3: SYSTEM IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING

SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION EFFECTS............................ 55

3.1 Introduction.................................................................................................. 55

3.1.1 Objectives...................................................................................... 55

3.1.2 Fundamental Assumptions ............................................................ 57

3.2 Derivation of Transfer Functions from Modal Equations ........................... 58

3.3 Nonparametric System Identification .......................................................... 61

3.3.1 Transmissibility Functions ............................................................ 62

3.3.2 Smoothing of Frequency Response Functions .............................. 64

3.4 Parametric System Identification................................................................. 65

vi
 3.4.1 Introduction ................................................................................... 65

3.4.2 Representation of Continuous Transfer Functions in

Discrete Time ................................................................................ 66

3.4.3 Solution Procedures....................................................................... 68

(a) Model parameter estimation by the cumulative error

method (CEM) ................................................................... 69

(b) Model parameter estimation by the recursive prediction

error method (RPEM) ....................................................... 70

(c) Evaluation of modal frequencies and damping ratios ...... 73

(d) Uncertainty in the estimated model................................... 74

3.5 Summary of System Identification Analysis Procedures............................. 74

3.5.1 Data Preprocessing........................................................................ 74

3.5.2 Analysis Procedures ...................................................................... 76

(a) Instrument selection .......................................................... 77

(b) Nonparametric system identification ................................ 77

(c) Parametric system identification....................................... 77

3.6 Interpretation of Results .............................................................................. 83

3.6.1 Base Fixity Conditions for Different Input-Output Pairs .............. 83

(a) Flexible-base ..................................................................... 86

(b) Pseudo flexible-base.......................................................... 88

(c) Fixed-base ......................................................................... 90

(d) Summary............................................................................ 90

3.6.2 Estimation of Fixed- and Flexible-Base Modal Parameters.......... 91

(a) Estimation of fixed-base modal parameters

(missing base rocking motions)......................................... 92

vii
 (b) Estimation of flexible-base modal parameters
(missing free-field motions)............................................... 96

CHAPTER 4: SELECTION OF SITES AND CONDITIONS CONSIDERED ..... 97

4.1 Site Selection Criteria: ‘A’ Sites ................................................................ 97

4.1.1 Effects of Building Vibrations on Ground Motions...................... 98

(a) Analytical studies .............................................................. 98

(b) Empirical studies............................................................. 101

(c) Summary.......................................................................... 104

4.1.2 Effects of Spatial Incoherence on the Compatibility of

Foundation and Free-Field Motions ............................................ 105

4.2 Conditions Examined ................................................................................ 109

CHAPTER 5: EMPIRICAL EVALUATION OF SOIL-STRUCTURE

INTERACTION EFFECTS AND CALIBRATION OF
ANALYSIS PROCEDURES ............................................................. 119

5.1 Introduction................................................................................................ 119

5.2 Comparison of Free-Field and Foundation-Level Structural Motions ...... 121

5.2.1 Peak Accelerations, Velocities, and Displacements.................... 129

(a) Larger de-amplification of foundation peak accelerations

than peak velocities or displacements............................. 129

(b) Increased de-amplification of foundation-level motions

in embedded structures.................................................... 130

(c) Reduced de-amplification of foundation-level motions

in >4 story structures ...................................................... 130

(d) Large de-amplification of foundation-level accelerations

at particular sites ............................................................ 130

viii
 (e) Amplification of foundation-level motions ...................... 131

5.2.2 Spectral Accelerations................................................................. 132

5.3 Empirical Evaluation of the Effects of Inertial Interaction ..................... 133

5.3.1 Evaluation of Modal Parameters: Overview .............................. 133

5.3.2 Verification of Estimated First-Mode Periods and Damping

Ratios........................................................................................... 134

5.3.3 Interpretation of Modal Parameters............................................. 137

(a) Confidence levels............................................................. 140

(b) Errors in first-mode parameters ..................................... 141

(c) System nonlinearities....................................................... 143

5.3.4 Evaluation of Period Lengthening and Foundation Damping

Factors ......................................................................................... 145

(a) Definition of soil and structure parameters .................... 145

(b) General trends................................................................. 146

(c) Effect of aspect ratio ....................................................... 149

(d) Effect of foundation type ................................................. 151

(e) Effect of embedment ........................................................ 152

(f) Effect of structure type .................................................... 152

(g) Effect of ground shaking intensity................................... 156

5.4 Calibration of Predictive Analytical Formulations for Inertial

Interaction Effects ................................................................................... 157

5.4.1 Overview of Analysis Procedures and Required Input ............... 157

5.4.2 Assessment of Predicted Period Lengthening and Foundation

Damping Factors ......................................................................... 158

(a) General trends................................................................. 158

ix
 (b) Effect of embedment: comparison of “modified Veletsos”
(MV) and “modified Bielak” (MB) methodologies ......... 164

(c) Effect of aspect ratio ....................................................... 167

(d) Effect of foundation type ................................................. 170

(e) Effect of structure type .................................................... 171

(f) Effect of foundation shape............................................... 173

(g) Effect of foundation flexibility......................................... 174

(h) Discussion of site A34 ..................................................... 177

5.5 Verification of Code Provisions for Inertial Interaction.......................... 180

5.5.1 Overview of Analysis Procedures and Required Input ............... 180

5.5.2 Verification Analyses .................................................................. 183

(a) Database.......................................................................... 183

(b) Analysis Procedures........................................................ 183

(c) Results ............................................................................. 187

CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS................................................. 193

6.1 Scope of Research...................................................................................... 193

6.2 Research Findings and Recommendations ................................................ 195

6.2.1 Interaction Effects as Quantified from Foundation/Free-Field

Ground Motion Indices ............................................................... 196

6.2.2 Inertial Interaction Effects as Quantified by Variations

between Fixed- and Flexible-Base First-Mode Parameters......... 196

6.2.3 Recommendations and Considerations for Design ..................... 200

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 203

x
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Schematic showing context of SSI in an engineering

assessment of seismic loading for a structure ............................................. 2

Figure 1.2: Map of California showing locations of sites and selected

earthquakes considered in this study........................................................... 4

Figure 2.1: Substructure approach to analysis of the SSI problem .............................. 12

Figure 2.2: Simplified model for analysis of inertial interaction................................. 14

Figure 2.3: Foundation stiffness and damping factors for elastic and
viscoelastic halfspaces, υ=0.4 (after Veletsos and Verbic, 1973)............. 18

Figure 2.4: Embedded soil-foundation-structure system on finite

soil layer .................................................................................................... 22

Figure 2.5: Foundation stiffness and damping factors for rigid

cylindrical foundations embedded in a halfspace;
approximation vs. solution by Apsel and Luco (1987) ............................. 23

Figure 2.6 Dashpot coefficients for rocking radiation damping vs.

frequency for different foundation shapes (Dobry and
Gazetas, 1986)........................................................................................... 26

Figure 2.7: Disk foundations with (a) rigid core considered by Iguchi
and Luco (1982), (b) thin perimeter walls considered by Liou
and Huang (1994), and (c) rigid concentric walls considered
by Riggs and Waas (1985) ........................................................................ 28

Figure 2.8: Rocking stiffness and damping factors for flexible foundations;
rigid core cases (Iguchi and Luco, 1982) and perimeter wall
case (Liou and Huang, 1994)..................................................................... 29

Figure 2.9: Period lengthening ratios for single degree-of-freedom structure

with rigid circular foundation on viscoelastic halfspace
(υ=0.4, γ=0.15) [Veletsos and Nair, 1975] ............................................... 33

Figure 2.10: Foundation damping factors for single degree-of-freedom

structure with rigid circular foundation on elastic and viscoelastic
halfspace (υ=0.4, γ=0.15) [Veletsos and Nair, 1975] ............................... 33

xi
Figure 2.11: Comparison of period lengthening ratios and foundation damping
factors for single degree-of-freedom structure with surface and
embedded foundations (υ=0.45, β=5%, γ=0.15, ζ=5%)
[Veletsos and Nair, 1975; Bielak, 1975; Aviles and Perez-
Rocha, 1996] ............................................................................................. 34

Figure 2.12: System considered for kinematic interaction analyses

(Veletsos and Prasad, 1989 and Veletsos et al., 1997).............................. 40

Figure 2.13: Magnitudes of transfer functions between free-field ground

motion and FIM for vertically incident incoherent waves
(Veletsos et al., 1997 and Veletsos and Prasad, 1989).............................. 44

Figure 2.14: Magnitudes of transfer functions between free-field ground

motion and FIM for obliquely incident coherent waves. Curves
for disk and vertically incident incoherent waves also shown
for comparison (Veletsos et al., 1997 and Veletsos and Prasad, 1989) .... 44

Figure 2.15: Amplitudes of transfer functions between free-field ground

motion and FIM for rigid cylindrical foundation embedded
in elastic halfspace and subjected to vertically incident
coherent waves (Day, 1977) ...................................................................... 46

Figure 2.16: Amplitudes of transfer functions between free-field ground

motion and FIM for rigid cylindrical foundation embedded
in finite soil layer over rigid base and subjected to vertically
incident coherent waves (Elsabee and Morray, 1977)............................... 46

Figure 2.17: Comparison of transfer function amplitudes for cylinders

embedded in a halfspace and finite soil layer and
approximation by Elsabee and Morray (Day, 1977 and
Elsabee and Morray, 1977)........................................................................ 48

Figure 3.1(a): Schematic of the system identification problem ....................................... 56

Figure 3.1(b): Motions used as inputs and outputs for system identification
of structures ............................................................................................... 56

Figure 3.2: Time variation of first-mode, flexible-base parameters for Site A23,
transverse direction, 1994 Northridge earthquake..................................... 78

Figure 3.3: Variation of error with time delay............................................................. 80

Figure 3.4: Variation of error with number of modes.................................................. 80

xii
Figure 3.5: Comparison of transmissibility functions from nonparametric
analysis (light line) and parametric model (heavy line) ............................ 80

Figure 3.6: Zeros (o) and poles (+) of the discrete time transfer function................... 80

Figure 3.7: (a) Comparison of model and recorded output, and (b) residual
of identification of roof motions ............................................................... 80

Figure 3.8: Cross-correlation function between input and residual and 99%
confidence limits of independence ............................................................ 80

Figure 3.9: Flexible-base transfer function surface identified by parametric

system identification, Site A23, 1994 Northridge earthquake .................. 81

Figure 4.1: Systems considered by (a) Trifunac (1972) and (b) Wirgin and
Bard (1996) ............................................................................................... 99

Figure 4.2: Fourier amplitude of ground surface displacements adjacent to

shear wall for vertically incident SH waves (Trifunac, 1972)................... 99

Figure 4.3: Synthetic seismograms for ground sites and reference free-field;
fbldg = 0.5 Hz, fsite = 0.3 Hz, finput = 0.25 Hz (Wirgin and Bard, 1996)...... 99

Figure 4.4: Power spectral density and coherence functions for sites A4, 11, 32,
and 33, NS direction................................................................................ 103

Figure 4.5: Power spectral density and coherence functions for sites with
free-field motions influenced by vibrations of structures near
the accelerograph..................................................................................... 106

Figure 4.6: Comparison of coherencies computed from regression equations

in Abrahamson et al., 1991 for LSST array (all events) and
Abrahamson, 1988 for SMART1 array (Event 40) ................................. 106

Figure 4.7: Map of Humboldt/Arcata Bay area showing site and

earthquake locations ................................................................................ 113

Figure 4.8: Map of San Francisco Bay area showing site and earthquake
locations .................................................................................................. 114

Figure 4.9: Map of Los Angeles area showing site and earthquake locations........... 115

Figure 4.10: Map of San Bernardino area showing site and earthquake
locations .................................................................................................. 116

xiii
Figure 5.1: Comparison of peak accelerations in the free-field and at the
foundation-level of structures.................................................................. 124

Figure 5.2: Comparison of peak velocities in the free-field and at the

foundation-level of structures.................................................................. 125

Figure 5.3: Comparison of peak displacements in the free-field and at the

foundation-level of structures.................................................................. 126

~
Figure 5.4: Comparison of 5%-damped spectral accelerations at T in the
free-field and at the foundation-level of structures ................................. 127

Figure 5.5: Comparison of 5%-damped spectral accelerations at Teq in the

free-field and at the foundation-level of structures ................................. 128

Figure 5.6: Transverse acceleration time histories and time variation of first-
mode parameters, Imperial County Services Building, 1979
Imperial Valley Earthquake..................................................................... 144

Figure 5.7: Period lengthening ratio and foundation damping factor for sites
sorted by confidence level, and analytical results from Veletsos
and Nair (1975) ....................................................................................... 147

Figure 5.8: Effect of aspect ratio on period lengthening ratio and foundation
damping factor......................................................................................... 150

Figure 5.9: Effect of foundation type on period lengthening ratio and foundation
damping factor......................................................................................... 150

Figure 5.10: Effect of embedment on period lengthening ratio and foundation

damping factor......................................................................................... 153

Figure 5.11: Period lengthening ratios and foundation damping factors for base
isolated and long-period structures compared to the best fit line
from acceptable confidence sites............................................................. 153

Figure 5.12: Period lengthening ratios and foundation damping factors for
moment frame and dual wall/frame buildings......................................... 154

Figure 5.13: Period lengthening ratios and foundation damping factors for
shear wall buildings................................................................................. 154

Figure 5.14(a):Errors in “modified Veletsos” formulation for sites sorted by

confidence level (tr=transverse, L=longitudinal direction) ..................... 161

xiv
Figure 5.14(b):Errors in “modified Veletsos” formulation for acceptable and low
confidence level sites with normalization by flexible-base parameters .. 163

Figure 5.15: Errors in “modified Veletsos” and “modified Bielak” formulations

for surface and embedded structures ....................................................... 165

Figure 5.16: Errors in predicted period lengthening ratios and foundation

damping factors optimized for different embedment ratios
[based on “modified Bielak” (MB) methodology for e/r > 0.5,
“modified Veletsos” (MV) otherwise] .................................................... 168

Figure 5.17: Errors in predicted period lengthening ratios and foundation

damping factors for sites sorted according to aspect ratio ...................... 169

Figure 5.18: Errors in predicted period lengthening ratios and foundation

damping factors for sites sorted according to foundation type................ 169

Figure 5.19: Errors in predicted period lengthening ratios and foundation damping
factors for sites with base isolated and long period structures ................ 172

Figure 5.20: Errors in predicted period lengthening ratios and foundation

damping factors for sites with (a) shear wall structures and
(b) frame and dual wall/frame structures ................................................ 172

Figure 5.21(a):Structure at site A34, Palmdale Hotel ..................................................... 178

Figure 5.21(b): Soil column at site A34, Palmdale Hotel ............................................... 179

~
Figure 5.22: Relationship between foundation damping factor ( ζ 0 ) and
period lengthening ratio for rigid disk foundation on homogeneous
halfspace (BSSC, 1995; ATC, 1978)........................................................ 182

Figure 5.23: Errors in Method 1 design procedure for sites sorted by

confidence level....................................................................................... 188

Figure 5.24: Errors in predicted period lengthening ratios and foundation

damping factors for design Methods 1 to 5............................................. 189

Figure 6.1: (a) Example of increased spectral acceleration resulting from

consideration of inertial interaction effects with site-specific
spectra, and (b) example of reduced spectral acceleration resulting
from consideration of inertial interaction effects with code-based
spectra with no damping correction ........................................................ 197

xv
xvi
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: Results of CEM parametric analyses for roof/free-field pair at

site A23, transverse direction, 1994 Northridge earthquake ..................... 79

Table 3.2: Required input and output to evaluate system parameters for
various conditions of base fixity ............................................................... 91

Table 4.1: Site and structural data for sites included in this study ........................... 110

Table 4.2: Earthquakes which contributed data to this study................................... 117

Table 5.1: Indices of free-field and foundation ground motions for ‘A’ sites.......... 122

Table 5.2: Comparison of system identification results (mean and standard

deviation) and estimated fixed- and flexible-base fundamental-
mode parameters at 11 sites .................................................................... 135

Table 5.3: Compilation of first-mode parameters for ‘A’ and ‘B’ sites ................... 138

Table 5.4 Inertial interaction effects evaluated from system identification

analyses and predicted by “modified Veletsos” and “modified
Bielak” formulations ............................................................................... 159

Table 5.5: Empirical and predicted values of foundation damping factor

~
ζ 0 developed with and without corrections for shape effects
(S indicates shape correction made, S=1 indicates no correction) .......... 174

Table 5.6: Comparisons of empirical period lengthenings and foundation

damping factors for sites A24-L and B2 with MV predictions for
different assumed conditions of foundation non-rigidity ........................ 176

Table 5.7: Code-prescribed values of soil modulus and VS degradation

with effective long period ground acceleration, AV (BSSC, 1995)......... 182

Table 5.8: Inertial interaction effects evaluated from system identification

and various design procedures ................................................................ 184

xvii
xvi
 LIST OF SYMBOLS

a, b Halfwidth of foundation in direction normal and perpendicular to horizontal

projection of inclined incident wave ray path, respectively

a1 a 2J , b1b 2J Parameters describing discrete-time parametric transfer function

a0 Normalized frequency, = ωr/VS

~
a0 Normalized frequency a0 adjusted for incoherence and wave inclination effects,
Eq. 2.16

Af Area of foundation

c Internal damping of single degree-of-freedom structure

c Damping matrix of multi degree-of-freedom structure

cu, c θ Coefficients of foundation translational and rotational dashpots

crx, cry Dimensionless dashpot coefficients for foundation rocking radiation damping in
longitudinal and transverse directions of foundation, Fig. 2.6

d Delay between x(t) and y(t), used in parametric system identification

dS Depth of finite soil layer

D Flexural rigidity of foundation, Eq. 2.9

e Foundation embedment

Ef Young’s modulus of foundation

~ ~
fi , f⋅i , f⋅i * Fixed-, flexible-, and pseudo flexible-base frequencies for mode i. Parameters are
for the first mode if index i is not shown.

f Frequency in Hz

feq Predominant frequency of earthquake shaking, in Hz

fNyq Nyquist frequency, =1/(2⋅∆t)

G Shear modulus of soil

xix
h Effective height of structure, i.e. distance above foundation-level at which a
building’s mass can be concentrated to yield the same base moment that would
occur in the actual structure assuming a linear first mode shape

H Total height of structure from base to roof

H(s), H(s) Complex-valued transfer function determined from parametric system

identification for single input-multiple output and single input-single output
motion pairs, respectively

H(iω), H(iω) Complex-valued transmissibility function for single input-multiple output and
single input-single output motion pairs, respectively

H(z) Discrete time transfer function for single input-single output model

Hu (ω ) , Hθ (ω ) Analytical transfer function amplitude for foundation input motion (FIM)

in translation and rocking

i −1, also occasionally used as modal index

I Rotational inertia of structure

If Moment of inertia of foundation

J Number of modes used to model n degree-of-freedom structure in system

identification analysis (J < n)

k Lateral stiffness of single degree-of-freedom structure

k Stiffness matrix of multi degree-of-freedom structure

ku , k θ Complex-valued dynamic foundation impedance for translation and rocking

deformations

k u, Ku Dynamic and static translational stiffnesses for foundation on halfspace

kθ, Kθ Dynamic and static rotational stiffnesses for foundation on halfspace

(Ku)FL,(Ku)FL/E Static translational stiffnesses for foundation on finite soil layer and foundation
embedded into finite soil layer, Eqs. 2.6 and 2.7

(Kθ)FL,(Kθ)FL/E Static rotational stiffnesses for foundation on finite soil layer and foundation
embedded into finite soil layer, Eqs. 2.6 and 2.7

xx
L/B Aspect ratio of foundation in plan view, used in context of discussion of shape
effects on foundation impedance, Section 2.2.2(d)

Li* Generalized influence factor of structure for mode i

mi * Generalized mass of structure for mode i

m Mass matrix of multi degree-of-freedom structure

M Base moment in structure

n Number of structural degrees-of-freedom

N Number of points in time history used for system identification analysis

r1, r2 Radii which match the area and moment of inertia, respectively, of assumed
circular foundation in impedance function formulations to the actual foundation
area and moment of inertia, Eq. 2.3

r Radius of circular foundation

Rx(τ), Rxy(τ) Autocorrelation function, cross correlation function

s Variable for Laplace-transformed functions, units of frequency

Sx(ω), Sxy(ω) Power spectral density function, cross power spectral density function (also used
as Sg, Sφ, and Scir for free-field torsional, and circumferential motions,
respectively)

t Variable for time-dependent functions

tf Thickness of foundation slab

∆t Data sampling interval of strong motion data

Teq Predominant period of earthquake shaking

~ ~
Ti , Ti , Ti * Fixed-, flexible-, and pseudo flexible-base periods for mode i. Parameters are for
the first mode if index i is not shown.

u, u Displacement of single degree-of-freedom and multi degree-of-freedom structure

relative to its base

xxi
ut , u t Total displacement of structure, = ug + uf +hθ + u, total displacement vector of
multi degree-of-freedom structure

uFIM Translation of foundation due to kinematic interaction effects

ug Free-field ground displacement

uf Horizontal displacement of foundation relative to free-field

V Base shear in structure

VS Shear wave velocity of soil

V(Θ) Measure of cumulative error between model and recorded output in parametric
system identification analysis

x(t) Input time history used in system identification analyses

Xj(t) Generalized coordinate used to express structural deformations, Eq. 3.3

y(t) Output time history used in system identification analyses

z Variable for Z-transformed functions, dimensionless

αu, βu Dimensionless parameters expressing the frequency-dependence of foundation

translational stiffness and damping, respectively, Eq. 2.4

αθ, βθ Dimensionless parameters expressing the frequency-dependence of foundation

rocking stiffness and damping, respectively, Eq. 2.4

αV Inclination angle of incident seismic waves

β Soil hysteretic damping ratio

ε(t, Θ) Error between model and recorded output in parametric system identification
analysis, Eq. 3.20

γ Ratio of structure-to-soil mass, Eq. 2.13

γ2(iω) Coherence function for single input/single output motion pair, Eq. 3.12

γ(ω) Coherency function for single input/single output motion pair, Eq. 4.1

η Ratio of foundation-to-soil rigidity, Eq. 2.8

xxii
κ Dimensionless incoherence parameter

λ Forgetting factor for exponential window used in parametric system identification

analyses by the Recursive Prediction Error Method

µ Ratio of structure/structure-plus-foundation mass

θ Base rocking of foundation slab

θFIM Base rocking of foundation slab due to kinematic interaction effects

ρ Mass density of soil

σ Ratio of soil-to-structure stiffness, Eq. 2.12

υ Soil Poisson ratio

υf Poisson ratio of foundation

ω Angular frequency in radians/sec.

~,ω
ωi , ω ~ * Fixed-, flexible-, and pseudo flexible-base angular frequencies for mode i.
i i
Parameters are for the first mode if index i is not shown.

ωu , ω θ Foundation dynamic translational and rotational stiffnesses expressed in units of

frequency, Eq. 3.41

~ ~
ζi , ζi , ζi * Fixed-, flexible-, and pseudo flexible-base damping ratios for mode i. Parameters
are for the first mode if index i is not shown.

ζu , ζθ Foundation dynamic translational and rotational damping expressed in units of

damping ratio, Eq. 3.41

~
ζ0 Foundation damping factor, defined in Eq. 2.11

Φi Mode shape of structure for mode i

Γ Function representing the effects of ground motion incoherence, Eq. 2.15

Γ(t) Vector of input and output motions, Eq. 3.17

Θ Vector of parameters in parametric system identification, Eq. 3.18

xxiii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A number of individuals and organizations contributed greatly to this study by providing

structural and geotechnical data for the sites which were considered. They are far too numerous
to completely acknowledge here, however, we would like to extend special thanks to Martin
Hudson and Paul Schade of Law/Crandall, Inc., Paul Boddi and Lelio Mejia of Woodward-Clyde
Consultants, Robert Darragh of the California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (CSMIP),
Walt Jungblut and John Tinsley of the U.S. Geological Survey, and David Hsu of the City of Los
Angeles.

The gathering of strong motion data for this study would not have been possible without the
help of Robert Darragh of CSMIP, Gerald Brady (retired) and Ron Porcella of the U.S.
Geological Survey, Maria Todorovska of the University of Southern California, and H.T. Tang of
the Electrical Power Research Institute. Thanks are also extended to Doug Dreger of the
University of California, Berkeley Seismographic Station for providing access to seismograph-
digitization equipment, and to Walter Silva of Pacific Engineering and Analysis for his assistance
in the processing of seismic data.

Support for this project was provided by the U.S. Geological Survey, National Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Program, Award No. 1434-HQ-97-GR-02995. Support for closely related
research focusing on data gathering for this project was provided by the California Department of
Transportation under Contract No. RCA-59A130 and by the Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute/Federal Emergency Management Agency 1995-96 NEHRP Fellowship in Earthquake
Hazard Reduction. This support is gratefully acknowledged.

xxiv